Post by: PugGTI on May 17, 2005, 11:29:24 PM
I'm thinking if Nintendo doesn't come up with something good, the gamecube will be the last Nintendo console for me. Do any of you guys feel the same way? I feel like i've been let down by a company I've stuck with and played some brilliant games but I feel they've deserted me. I love new technology. Can't get enough of something new.
Since the 64 nintendo got stuck on the belief that this isn't what I want, so i've been thinking....
X360 or PS3???
Post by: PaLaDiN on May 17, 2005, 11:48:01 PM
Second of all, regardless of whether Nintendo's console delivers it will still have Metroid, Zelda, SSB and Mario.
I'm already sold on the console, the only question is if I'll be completely satisfied with it.
Third, you can go take your sob story somewhere else until we actually know something about the Rev in comparison to the others. It's too early for your soap opera.
Fourth, Rev is supposed to be newer technology than the others. Unless you just mean more powerful technology that does the same thing it already does this gen but better... that's not new technology, it's upgraded technology.
Lastly, PS3.
Post by: PugGTI on May 18, 2005, 12:03:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
Fourth, Rev is supposed to be newer technology than the others. Unless you just mean more powerful technology that does the same thing it already does this gen but better... that's not new technology, it's upgraded technology.
XDR ram not new to consoles?
Bluray not new?
Tri-core processors?
What is new then?
If by what your saying is true then the NRev would be the upgraded one...
Post by: TMW on May 18, 2005, 12:34:51 AM
The Rev is going to find a way to a completely different thing.
Post by: Dryden on May 18, 2005, 12:42:31 AM
Honestly, though - if Nintendo isn't giving you what you want, then don't buy their stuff. But hold off on your pre-order for a few months, eh? Enjoy your Zelda and your Mario Kart DS and your Geist and your Animal Crossing.
As for the Gamecube being the "last Nintendo console" for you, that's too bad. I think the GBA is still the best system on the market. But that's just me and, you know, 28 million other owners. (No I don't speak for 28 million, pipe down...)
Post by: PaLaDiN on May 18, 2005, 12:53:43 AM
If by what your saying is true then the NRev would be the upgraded one... "
Show me proof that the Rev does the same thing this gen of consoles is doing.
I don't care about your technical specs. When I sit down and play PS3 or X360, all I'll be doing is sitting down to play prettier Xbox or PS2 games.
Post by: KDR_11k on May 18, 2005, 01:43:55 AM
Seriously, whoever decided that the Rev should be shown at E3 like this is a mindless jerk who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes!
Post by: PugGTI on May 18, 2005, 02:49:47 AM
Post by: austinattech on May 18, 2005, 04:41:23 AM
Also, on a side note, think of the inevitable rising costs of the new "interactive movies" that other platforms will have. With graphics like those, their development time for games will increase exponentially. "yea, I can't wait for the new ___________________ to come out in 2011."
Post by: PugGTI on May 18, 2005, 05:14:09 AM
What about the much better AI?
Collision detection?
Ease of development?
The list goes on...
I think i'll take the Silicon Knights approach. "Simple" wont just cut it, I play turd loads of games. I like to be able to pick a game up anytime and play it, yes, but I also want the game to draw me in with a sense of something much more than "button mashing".
Post by: rpglover on May 18, 2005, 05:35:33 AM
first of all, and it doesn't matter to everyone, but the rising costs of these new systems is crazy. the ps3 is already rumored to be selling in japan when it is released for around 465 dollars, and that's just not an affordable price. i know that the ps3 will come with all kinds of features, but i don't know if i would ever use all of these features. blu-ray disks are an example - a good storage for sure, but it is not a mass market player or storage medium yet. of course the ps2 launched with a dvd player and not many households had them back then. but then again the ps2 wasn't almost 500 bucks at launch.
another problem is this focus on the hd era. as much as i love high definition, i do not own an hd tv yet. i know many people that do not. this doesn't worry me as much for playing the games, but game costs are going to go up. i really don't have all this money to spend on these game systems, although some people do.
that's why i like where nintendo is taking the revolution. its going to be cheaper. its going to have nice next generation graphics, but it is not going to be over-powering. developement on the revolution is going to be easy, like the gamecube's so it will feel 'similar' to developers. plus this online plan that nintendo has going is great. you can download old classics right to the system. now i know that's not a huge thing for some people, but its no denying that playing old classics and new ones all on one system kicks total ass. not only that, but its free online for all games unless third party games want to charge a fee. also just because the developement will be simple for the revolution does not mean that the games will be 'simple.' nintendo is making their console developer friendly so people with that 'big idea' can come and develope without spending rediculous costs on game developement.
there are many other things to talk about, like the sleekness and such, but remember - nintendo has yet to show off any footage of revolution games. they have yet to show us any revolution games. they haven't shown us the controler. so there is still much to be revealed, which i can't wait for.
Post by: tpfkanep on May 18, 2005, 06:04:28 AM
Kaplin: The Revolution will be 2-3 times more powerful than the Cube = Multiply Zelda:TP and RE4 by 2-3. And what do you have? Nintendo is known to downplay their hardware. The PS2 can push ~70 million polygons. The Cube ~12 million. Look at the games on both systems and then tell me if specs mean anything. On paper, yes. But in real world environments? Will PS3 be another PS2? I dunno, but I will not be surprised. When taking cost into effect, I will be the 1st to show surprise if Sony delivers this time. It seems everyone is so quick to forget the stunts that Sony pulled with the PS2. Maybe they will be doing the same this time? I dunno, but I have no faith in them after the way they suckered me in with the PS2-hype.
Nintendo delivers.
Post by: couchmonkey on May 18, 2005, 06:10:44 AM
Post by: ta7mike on May 18, 2005, 06:54:11 AM
At the end of day, development for the Rev will be more economical and hopefully allow Developers to be Creative rather than concentrating how 'realistic' the spit looks...don't get me wrong, RE4 definitely showed off how realistic a game should be and can be on Ninty's platform, and the new Zelda will just prove that again, and that's important. At the end of day I want QUALITY rather than a BLUR of games.
What you have here is two big guns showing off every feature on day one, whereas the Big N leaves out the Specs, leaves out the big secret on the controllers in order to save the day! Don't discount the feature of Nintendo's Wireless Internet connectivity where you can download their own 20 years of gaming library games or new titles developed by Indie Creators in Europe, Asia, etc. (Discussed in another thread) that don't have a million dollar dev budget, think of an iTunes for GAMES. Quote from their press release:"Freedom of design: A dynamic development architecture equally accommodates both big-budget, high-profile game “masterpieces” as well as indie games conceived by individual developers equipped with only a big idea."
The battle is not lost...but has only BEGUN...Ninty is working on its biggest GUN yet..
Post by: jasonditz on May 18, 2005, 07:24:46 AM
Post by: Arbok on May 18, 2005, 07:38:13 AM
New Smash Bros game at launch? Check
Online Smash Bros? Check
Would I kill for the Revolution now? Hell yes
Honestly, to me, they could just say that the Revolution could play GCN games, you could download old Nintendo games, and that you could play a new SSB online and I would get it. Everything else is gravy to me, although SSB:M is my favorite game of all time.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 18, 2005, 07:59:58 AM
The Rev isn't a lost battle...yet. The conference was very damaging. But it's not too late yet. If Nintendo reveals all the Rev details in the next few months and they have something really amazing to show they should be fine. If they wait until next E3 they're f*cked. Timing is very important. They also have to share the info with third parties with enough time for meaningful third party games to be made for launch. We don't know when they plan on doing that or if they've done that already but that's another important factor. And of course what those extra details are is important as well. If they reveal the controller is a powerglove it doesn't matter if they reveal it tommorrow or ten years from now. It will bomb.
I still think that yesterday was the time to show things and they're risking Rev sales every day since then that they don't show info. But they can still pull it off. Ask me if the Revolution is a lost battle this Christmas. By then we'll either have enough information to make a good opinion or we won't have that information at which point I'll declare the Rev as a lost battle.
Post by: Muzzy on May 18, 2005, 08:49:19 AM
Post by: Chode2234 on May 18, 2005, 09:33:44 AM
Post by: Jdub03 on May 18, 2005, 01:47:33 PM
Post by: trip1eX on May 18, 2005, 05:15:16 PM
The real question is can Nintendo still make money making a third place console? If they can then there isn't much of a problem is there. I think if they come in at $200 it will help. Of course 3rd party support can't hurt. Be nice if they could get some major third party exclusives at least one a year or so to help round out their library. Also Nintendo said they are working on some new IPs. That is exciting stuff.
Worst case maybe they go software only on the console side. Hell they still make bongos and microphones and even new controllers to play with their games on other other consoles. The peripheral has been most of their innovation on the hardware side anyway.
Post by: TMW on May 18, 2005, 05:25:25 PM
To keep with the race metaphor, you're making odds on a horse you haven't even seen yet, just a few pictures and some rumors.
Wait until they release some specs, and maybe a detail about the controller or two.
Then, I suppose, you can say "Nintendo is teh doomed!"
Post by: Strell on May 18, 2005, 05:26:04 PM
Yea, increasing the polygons and making engines with more features is a nice idea, but outside of graphics, hardly anything else can be improved UNLESS you get incredibly talented programmers to hack away at features for long, long periods of time. Yea, a physics engine on the PS3 might be more in depth than the PS2, but it is LARGELY based on how well the programmers write it. It has so little to do with the pure power of the system itself. And in a profit-based economy and industry, NO ONE wants to have their games stick around to let the programmers hammer out a more realistic way of falling.
It's wishful thinking to assume that a bigger console = more features outside of graphics. Yea, in a perfect world where everyone had years to write better code and engines, that might be. But in this EA-get-a-game-out-every-year-no-matter-what, you'll be lucky to see anything leaps and bounds ahead of what is currently available. Clothing physics, water reflections, shadows and lighting. The only reason the N64 couldn't do it better is because the graphics would have required too much.
But I'm pretty damn sure if you were to animate, say, a feather on the N64, it could be identical in physics to the PS3. Sure, it would look like sh*t compared to it, but you could easily implement almost identical code.
More power = more graphics and that's almost SOLELY what it will always mean.
Post by: Caillan on May 18, 2005, 05:28:11 PM
Quote
The real question is can Nintendo still make money making a third place console?
I'd point out that the Cube is more profitable than the PS2 and the XBox combined, but because the XBox has actually lost money I guess it wold be better to say it's made more money than the PS2 and PS1/PSX/PSOne combined. Nintendo can make a profit and Nintendo can fight its way back to number one or number two is the states again. Just we don't have enough information to even guess if they will yet.
Post by: PugGTI on May 18, 2005, 07:27:23 PM
Quote
Man, if people honestly think that more power = better AI and better hit detection, they obviously know nothing about programming.
Cheers, tho its obviously you who knows nothing. Where are YOU coming from? A couple of late nights of HTML? Do you really think that an 8-bit MC68HC11 Microcontroller would be able to execute 100 lines of instructions in the same amount of time as an AMD64? How many lines does it take in machine code to even create a triangular wave on a simple oscilliscope?
Do you think Kaspro-whatever plays chess against a gamecube? - No he plays against freakin' supercomputers!
Quote
And in a profit-based economy and industry, NO ONE wants to have their games stick around to let the programmers hammer out a more realistic way of falling.
First off all, its always profit based. But I don't care how much money ninetndo makes; I want to enjoy what I play.
Calculating more lines in the same amount of time makes it far easier on programmers, not harder.
Quote
But I'm pretty damn sure if you were to animate, say, a feather on the N64, it could be identical in physics to the PS3. Sure, it would look like sh*t compared to it, but you could easily implement almost identical code.
I really think your missing the point here too, if for example there were a hundred enemies on the N64 how many could or would you have on a PS3. Doesn't that change the gameplay totally? What about the bodies piling up? Stepping over them? Now thats not JUST graphics. If you think that artists are the only ones that create games you are wrong.
Post by: anubis6789 on May 18, 2005, 09:09:50 PM
Comparing a super computer to an 8 bit processor is a little out of scope. I'm sure that all three systems next gen will be just a comparable as they were the last, and the one before that, and the one before that... You make it sound like the REV is going to be some sort of abacus in comparison to the PS3 and XBOX 360.
Hell we don't even have any REV specs to go off of and your already whining. The only system we have seen anything real on is the XBOX360 and they look to me to be about .5 times better than current generation XBOX titles. Infact I feel that almost every XBOX 360 game shone could have been done on a current XBOX with more RAM. I'm OK with this though because I know that they really are not using the full power of the system yet, and the games allready look great to me as they are.
Don't even get me started on the PS3's showing. If you want to believe that the Killzone 2 trailer is anywere near in-game then prepare your self for disapointment.
Post by: tpfkanep on May 18, 2005, 09:26:31 PM
Post by: Strell on May 19, 2005, 10:38:44 AM
Then you can't name Kasperov, but I don't necessarily hold that against you since it's largely a trivial point for two reasons: 1) It doesn't help your argument, and 2) it's just a Jeopardy question (meaning this reason is far less significant but I wanted to point it out anyway). Although, I would like to add that Deep Blue is nothing BUT programming, that graphics don't even enter into the equation (does it even have graphical output?), and that it is thinking out moves for several minutes (if not hours) at a time. Yes, that would make for brilliant gameplay - we could watch enemies assume The Thinker position and tell us "Wait, I almost know what I want to do here." It's a supercomputer of CODE, yes, but it's devoted to nothing BUT code, and there's NO WAY to gauge it's graphical performance because, surprise, no one has done it before. Without any kind of graphical accelerators or video hardware, what does this have to do with anything? Let's keep this in the realm of the video game industry.
"Calculating more lines in the same amount of time makes it far easier on programmers, not harder."
Um, what? Writing MORE code is somehow better? I will have to have that explained to me. This sounds like a managerial comment at McDonalds - "Hey, if we stay open twenty FOUR hours, we can make more profit. Nevermind the losers running the stand at 4 AM, they can deal with it if I tell them to." So some guy decides 500K lines of code isn't enough, and tripling it makes it better? Yea, it MIGHT make it better IF the programmers don't tell him to eat sh*t first and write half ass code. But in an industry that demands 60-70 hour weeks for months at a time, who in the hell has time for that? You can ask the EA programmers. I'm sure they'd be delighted to think about writing MORE code for a useless engine that won't showcase a damn thing they worked on anyway.
"I really think your missing the point here too, if for example there were a hundred enemies on the N64 how many could or would you have on a PS3"
Fairly irrelevent. If the N64 can make a character react to the same atmospheric and environmental effects in the same general way as the PS3, whats the damn difference? It all goes back to the idea of games looking better but still playing, looking, controlling, and feeling the same. What is the honest difference between Final fantasy 1 on the NES and the fundamental cores of FF7, 8, 9, 10, etc? You do largely the same thing in all of them. Yea, FF7 and the like introduce some nice new elements, they look killer, but so what? I cast Ice 3 in FF and kill an enemy in 5 seconds. Or I can cast it in FF7 and wait the 45 seconds that Square thinks is necessary to prove to me their artists got a lot of damn time on their hands. In both instances it's almost the same game. An FPS on the PC years ago is almost identical to anything out now. Half Life gets trumped by Half Life 2, but aside from the physics engine, whats the difference?
I think you're the one missing the point that I was getting at. Can the PS do PS2 games? No. It can't emulate 1/10th the graphics. But any sort of engine on it could be duplicated on both systems fairly well and you'd never notice much of a difference. Is there really any doubt that the mechanics of a game can't be retrofitted? If not, I suggest you look at the GBA. Talented programmers are spitting out some massively impressive 3D engines on it, and this is something a little more powerful than the SNES. That's code optimization because that technology has been around forever. If you fully optimized the code of a PS2 or Gamecube or Xbox, I bet you could get games much better looking than RE4, Halo 2, or ZOE 2.
Hell, I remember back on a PC100 mhz computer playing Stunts, a fully 3D polygon racing game. This is fully 4-5 years before the N64, and it was honestly comparable to first gen games. The cars controller well, you biult your own courses, the draw in distance was amazing. We're talking all of this before 3D hardware acceleration, before nVidia and ATI, before a thousand innovations in graphical technology. Before AGP even. And it ran without a hitch, had effects, opponents, racing AI, the whole 9 yards.
Whats the point I'm making? If someone took the time, they could make an engine, fill it FULL of effects, FULL of physics, FULL of shaders and lighting and complicated AI, and STILL manage to make it run on the current generation systems with fantastic graphics. But the time it would take to fully understand and unleash that kind of power would require thousands of hours of programming and research. Companies do not, and more importantly WILL not, sacrifice that kind of time in such a competitive market. There's no need to increase the power of a system 10 fold when you haven't even tapped the final innards of the current gen, NOR will you ever tap the full potential of the next gen.
I talked with a friend of mine who has done internship research with virtual reality companies, is currently purusing a computer architecture degree, and has programmed for the greater part of the last 10 years of his life. He might not rank with game develop programmers yet, but he's got enough insight to know what he's talking about, and he's a brilliant guy to boot. So he knows far more than me. And he knows that throwing 3 3.2ghz processers into a system is largely wasteful because the chances of them getting all three to work in tandem is difficult enough, and in most cases, one will do all the work and shovel off ancillary commands to the other one, and in rare cases, both. There's no way Microsoft is going to allow Bungie to sit back and fully wrangle the power out of all three processors. They don't have the time. And even if they DID ever make an engine that COULD do something like that, the artists would be worked to death filling up the screen with a bunch of useless polygons. There's no way in hell it would happen, ever. Most commands can't even be executed by two chips - only certain applications can be run on dual processors. And Microsoft thinks three are needed? You could cut one off and there'd be little, if any, loss in power. No one would know the damn difference. It's like having 512 megs of ram versus a gig of it when all you awnt to do is check your e-mail. If you can do it with 64 megs without a hitch, whats the damn need for all that useless power?
You're right - a Gameboy can't compare to a PS3. That's a stupid comparison and you're probably smart enough to know I wasn't saying that. The point I'm making is that all this power is largely useless, it won't make games look "omfg so much battar!!111" than today's games, and it will NEVER be an infinite possibility. Until we can automate graphics rendering in such a way that humans can get machines to do it for them, NO ONE has the resources, manpower, sweat, or determination to take a system with that kind of power to it's potential max. There's just no way to do it and NOT work on a game with hundreds of peopel for years at a time. If that were the case, the Duke Nukem Forever fiasco wouldn't be that - a fiasco - but rather something commonplace.
People bitch when Nitnendo takes 3 years to make Zelda. I can't imagine the groaning if Nintendo tried to push graphics even further and took 5, 6, or 7 years.
And I gaurantee you that if they wanted to, they could have. But no one has the time in this market.
And no programmers are going to be allowed to sit around and try to optimize something like that. It's not going to happen. At some point, it's all going to level off, and games are going to look all generically the same. Who in the hell honestly thinks you need more than a few dozen characters on screen? We're limited enough by 2D television technology as IS, who in the f*ck wants to clog their screen up with a bunch of useless bodies? Oh wait, and they better all have clothing dynamics, water effects, and personalized shadows.
Yea right.
Give me a break. The graphics argument is dead and has been since the friggin Dreamcast.
Post by: TMW on May 19, 2005, 10:48:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Strell Give me a break. The graphics argument is dead and has been since the friggin Dreamcast.
I agree with you, and you make a damn good post...
But try telling the raving Sony and MS fans that.
Post by: Caliban on May 19, 2005, 12:43:55 PM
Post by: pudu on May 19, 2005, 01:41:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PugGTI
Why does everyone think that newer and better technology only means better graphics??
What about the much better AI?
Collision detection?
Ease of development?
The list goes on...
Ok, while I believe this is a relatively useless topic I do have to agree with him here. The power in the console dictates the complexity of AI, physics, advanced play mechanics, and other programming techniques. I just posting something about this in another thread so I'll keep it short. I believe that it is important for the next gen consoles to be powerful enough for more immersive graphics and better AI, etc. AND have a better way to interact with the games. As far as I can tell Nintendo are the only ones taking the second one seriously but also the only ones deciding to slack on the first one. Kind of a hand off but will it pay off? Would you rather have more simplistic AI for characters in a simple-looking environment controlled effortlessly and naturally or would you rather have an unnatural and more "mechanical" control mechanism in a life-like and beatuiful world?
...I just wish Nintendo pressed both as being important you know?
Post by: Strell on May 19, 2005, 02:02:44 PM
I do think Pug has a good point - it's valid, it's significant.
What I'm saying is that just because you have the capability doesn't mean it will be harnessed. A more powerful system to the majority of people screams and equals better graphics. A small majority of people will try to crank out better physics and AI. And even then, the majority of the time, they won't care and won't try to - they've got people yelling at them to get the game out ASAP.
Having the power to do something and actually doing it? That's the question here. And my guess is that maybe 5-10% of anyone is going to care that they can simulate a dead body falling down stairs better than before. Wow, hoo-ray, sign me up. They'll fill up all that power with graphics.
In other words, given a more powerful system, developers are going to harness that power in the easiest way accessible and in the way that will make the most direct impact. Guess what that is? Graphics.
I didn't read anyone at MS saying "think of the physics!" when the 360 came out. I beleive they showed a bunch of videos. Did anyone else see endless lists of code?
I sure didn't.
Post by: pudu on May 19, 2005, 02:18:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
Let me say this:
I do think Pug has a good point - it's valid, it's significant.
What I'm saying is that just because you have the capability doesn't mean it will be harnessed. A more powerful system to the majority of people screams and equals better graphics. A small majority of people will try to crank out better physics and AI. And even then, the majority of the time, they won't care and won't try to - they've got people yelling at them to get the game out ASAP.
Having the power to do something and actually doing it? That's the question here. And my guess is that maybe 5-10% of anyone is going to care that they can simulate a dead body falling down stairs better than before. Wow, hoo-ray, sign me up. They'll fill up all that power with graphics.
In other words, given a more powerful system, developers are going to harness that power in the easiest way accessible and in the way that will make the most direct impact. Guess what that is? Graphics.
I didn't read anyone at MS saying "think of the physics!" when the 360 came out. I beleive they showed a bunch of videos. Did anyone else see endless lists of code?
I sure didn't.
Yep excellent point. Game developement is driven by what sells...and graphics sell more then other aspects of games such as physics. It's just too bad Nintendo is going to have a hard battle to fight to try and convice people graphics aren't as important in a game as how you control it. Also, how are we to know that developers will actually ustilize Nintendo's "revolutionary" new control mechanism? My guess is they won't nearly as well as they could...just as is happening with the DS. Nintendo is the only company really trying to explore new territory and they are the ones getting the most sh*t for their efforts. It breaks my heart.
Post by: BrianSLA on May 20, 2005, 10:04:11 PM
Post by: Arbok on May 20, 2005, 10:13:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BrianSLA
They Revolution looks like Gamecube 2 in that it looks like toy again. From cute purple box to bland very small zip drive.
Here I was thinking you were going to make a valid point, and then you toss this as why you dislike the Revolution already? Yes, great point, lord knows how many times I had to slap a kid upside the head for bringing his zip drive to the sandbox... So zip drives look like toys? News to me.
Anyway, I love the look of the Revolution, I have no problems with it at all. Personally I think the PS3 looks the best of the three, but the size aspect tips the scales very much in the Revolution's favor IMO.
Post by: TMW on May 20, 2005, 11:30:46 PM
Like Sony was trying too hard to make it look cool.
I really liked the look of the Rev. When I first saw the tiny thumbnail that was circulating around before the Ninty press conference, I was impressed.
Post by: Noble~Feather on May 21, 2005, 04:53:45 PM
P.S.: Xbox 360
Post by: KnowsNothing on May 21, 2005, 05:05:40 PM
1) The Rev is going to have all of Nintendo's franchises, plus new ones, including another Miyamoto gem at launch (the GC had Pikmin, which was awesome)
2) The GC is my favorite console ever.
3) I grew up with the N64, and I would love to play alot of them with the GC's or possibly the Rev's controller.
4) The SNES is said to be the greatest console of all time, and even though I already have most of the "must-own" titles, there's still a bunch that are hard to find (EMULATORS SUCK)
5) I never got to really experience the NES apart from Mario, Duck Hunt (goty), ad what was offered on the GC by way of AC of the Zelda Collector's Disk. So most of it will be new to me.
How can that fail? It can't.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 21, 2005, 07:24:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BrianSLA
I seriously doubt I will buy a Revolution... DEFINITELY not at launch... maybe never. The Gamecube has been a major disappointment for me and my game tastes skew more to Microsoft & Sony console games. When they showed off the Revolution... I said to myself ' Nintendo is doing it again '. They Revolution looks like Gamecube 2 in that it looks like toy again. From cute purple box to bland very small zip drive. I could be wrong and the games could be extraordinary and great and make me want a Revolution but I doubt it. I will definitely get a Xbox 360 and probably a Sony PS3 ( UNLESS it is $400 or $500 , then screw it and I'll wait ).
So uh... Why the hell did you buy a Gamecube?
